Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Vasanth vs M/O Communications on 26 September, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH, CHENNAT Griginal Application No.i09 of 2016 Mated x oiay of Santember, Two Thousand and Sevaniven PRESENT CORAN: HON' i LE SMT 8. BHAMATHI, MEMBER(A} BR, Vasanth, Sfo. (hate) R. Rajan, Old Wie O6-B. Mew So P78, Nodarnbakkam High Road, Nungambakkast, Chennai-y 600 034. Applicant * Unlon of India, Rep. By the Chief Postmaster General, Jamil Nadu Circle, Anne Salal, Chennai- GO GO2;
The Seniar Superintendent of Posts, Chennai City Oentral Division, Chennal GOO O17. oo Respondents fby Advocate: Ms, Shakila Anand "
Reserved on 24.8 201 i i i i i i N BRRER (Pronounced Sy Nan'hie SMT. B, Bharathi, Member (A3} The O48. has been fie by the anpticant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act 1985 seeking the fallowing refiefa~ "
wee i} To call for the records of the 2° reaspandents p pertaining:
to fis order made in (1) No. BSYBS/RRR/Oles dated 25.06 2018 and i2} the order made in No. B2/B4/RRR/Dealings/2015 dated 01.09.2015 and sat aside the same; camsequent to HF} direct the Respondents to appaint the applicant on compassionste grounds in any ane of the vacant posts on considering his educational qualification and #} to pass such further orders as this Han'ble may deem fit and proper."
*
2. | The factual matrix of the apolicant's case is as follaws:
2.1 The appacant's father died in harness on 24.09.2003 leaving behind his eath of his father, the appleant was a miner le. only 16 years of age. The mother of the applica However, on applicant's attaining miaiority, she mace a representation dated 2 14.32.2006 stating that applicgnt's sister was going to be married and, therefore, equested for aopointment to Aer son. Accordingly, AS mether was directed to sulmit the claini in favaur af heracn with necessary docurnents. The sarne was compiled with.
af Ns Satis © 22 The respandents coud consider the apalicant's case for the first time when ron the Circle Relaxation Committee mat during the year Ne. for the post of Postal Assistant and be was wrongly awarded only 63 merit paints. The apsticant "a submits that the ocintes awarded a§ per the 2010 circular versus points ta be awarded are as follows: ~s "CATEGORY POINTS TO BE ALLOTTED POINTS MAY BE AS PER CIREULAR AWARDED a. Family Pension 20 1s b. Terminal Benefits 10 18 & Manthly inceme 05 OS cd. Movablesimmovatile Property 18 10 e. No, of dependents a8 is f. No of unmarried datighters 15 05 g. Novof minor children 35 OS h. eh ove service 19 Og Total 130 74 2.3 However, candidates whe were awarded 69 relative merit paints in the year 2012 and awarded 67 relative merit points In the year 2018 were appointed as Postal Assistant, but the applicant, who ought ta have been awarded #4 points, was rejected for compassionate appointment twice in 2012 and 2015, 24 As per the letter and spirit of the scheme of compassionate appuiniment, the dete of death of the deceased emaloyee is to be tskun rte account to determine the oenury corsiition of the applicant's fernily for which criterla/weightage bas been laid dawn in the circular af SO1O. 9 ARhough the applicant's father died in 2003, hls application could be subnwtted in the year cy 1 wa! voy RE} Sofas 2006, on his attaining majority, Yhere was no delay on his part. But the respondents tock 10 years to consider the applicant's caste the ground that compassionate appointment cases of their Department were pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. All slong the selection years of 2012 and 2015; the applicant was eligible for appointment, ' 2.5, At the time of oral hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that his grievance is for non-grant of additional 5 points in the categories of "no. of dependents" and 5 points in the category of "no. of unmarried daughters".
3. in the reply to the O.A., the respondents have submitted that the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC} was not held after 2000 as the matter was subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Only iy 2010, after the receipt of the judgment dated 36.07.2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.2976/2008 (C4 No.7773/08) and 30 other SLPs, these cases could be considered. In the meantime, Circular 20.01.2010 was issued to allocate points based on various attributes, as mentioned in the policy of 1998 but codifled in the letter dated 20.4,2010. On the basis of the 2O1G circular, instructions were issued vide letter dsted 11.08.2001 by Respondent No.1 to re-examine all the cases pending by applying the relative merit points {RMP} and to send all the cases afresh for consideration by CRC.
3.4 As per the said circular, the anplicant received only 63 merit points, being as foliowss:-
Attributes Betas as per i Points _ Paynopsis Family Pension (Basic slus | Rs 3500/- 20 DA} Safys Terminal benefits Rs L138 aes ; 10 & (DCRG,GPE, Leave on Encashment, Pension mh commutation) | Monthly income _ UNH | 5 (Maxirnum) framovable Property NG | i e _ . (Maximum) No. of dependents afwife and son} ig Nea. of ownemerriod | AH D | * _ daughter No of miner chidren NIE ig Left aver service of the | 1? years? monthes 7s ' deceased . ' Grace points ¥ the applicant is widow iA = __ 183 points $.3 Rois submitted that claim for cOMpassionate appointment can be considered only as per extant provisions of the scheme existing af the time of Bracessing. AY the tme of Circle Relaxation Cammittee meeting in 2012, the applicant's sister was already married in 2011 and she was living separately and 3 hence nd points in her respect were allotted is both the category of 'na. of dependents' anx 'no, of unmarried daughters'. 3.4 To support this contention, the raspendents have relied upon the decision of the Hon'Me Principal Bench New Delhi in O.4. Neo. 2778/2031 dated O8.08.2011 in the case af Smt. Somvati Vs, UOr has held thet "it is settied law | that case for compassionate appointment has to be considered in terms of Paficy decision, which is prevalent at the time of considerstion." 3.5 The Hon'bie Supreme Court in the attier dated OF .O8 2033 In the case af Civil Appeal Ne. 6398/2013 filed by MGB Gramin Bank Vs. Chakrowearti Singh held that a candifate cannot caim that hs case is to be considered as per the & of 48 has to be considered only under the new scheme. eo 3.8 Hence the anpiicant was justhisbly awarded "16° paints and 'NAS under the category of 'Ne. ef deosndents' and 'Ne. OF unmarried daughter,' respectively, At the Ume of axanuning the case, as the aniicant hed attained majority, he was assigned 'ni! points in the category of minor children, Hence his claitn for grant of additional 11 paints over and above 63 merit seints is without any Basis.
3,f Having secured only 83 RMF and the lest cut off RMP in the PASSA cadre being G9, PM cadre belng 78 and MTS cadre being 94, Case Was not recommended by the CRC -2042 as thase with higher RMP, being more indigent, were given appointment within the ceiling of 594 Direct Recrui tment vacancy. The applicant was infarmed of the position on 25.6.2012 by the 2 respandent, 3.8 Totally 876 cases were receyed Up to 23.2012, against the 534 DR Vacancies accrued and ureutiized vacancies after i implementing the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, The CRO considered all the cases placed before the CRC and keeping in view that commitment was made to same of the anplicants on they representations/AT! requests that their cases would be considered on neerite after the judicial process ia completed, the CRC finally took decision in the CRC meeting held from 14° ~ 16" March 2012 in which the applicant's case, having ory G2 are RMPs was rejected ss also on the ground of aisesce of yerancies withing the ceiling of 5& D.8. Vacances, BS) Again the CRC met in 2028 whan the appl sart's case was again cansidered. The CRC meeting of 2015 was held in the 'eqntext of DORRT OM, dated 267.2022 within the time Umit of three years directing to consider the
- ot cases of compassionate appaintment which were relected/not recammended. Hence it was decided to re-examine all the not recommended cases of CROQO12 & 2015 in the ensuing CRC alang with other cases, on merit, againet $9 OR vacenaes of s ubsequent years, In the CRC af 2078, the RMP far the last selected candidates in the PA/SA cadre awartied was GG, PM cadre was 73 and MTS cadre was 83. The applicant had only 63 RMP. Henee, his case was again sot recommended on the same grounds, 3.10 The I' respondent vide letter dated 25.08.2015 intimated that a!) the not recammmended cases of CRC 2015 wi be placed before the next CRC and examined on merits, along with the fresh cases received, subject to the availablity of vacancies under OR quota was communicated to the applicant by fetter dated 19.2015, which is challenged now. 4, Heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the documents and rulings reed pan, 5 The Hmited issue for consideration in this O.A. is whether the applicant is eligible for award of 5 points each in the category of " Na. of dependents" and "Ne. of unmoeried daughter', ressectively which would raise the total in each of the categery to 15 and 5 respectively and render him elgitle for appointment. Secondly, whether in the two criteria cited above, weightage points should be assigned and eligibility assessed with reference ta the date on which the Batis o~ applicant's case was examined for consideration of CRC or with referance to the .
5 date of death of the employee. Thirdly, whather - the "Neeulars relied apon to reject the case of the applicant amounted to applicant's case being considered under a new scheme or whether it was a continuation of the original scheme of campassianate appaintmnent af 1998, 'Y §, Un the issue whether depandency/eligiity would be determined with reference to the date of death of the deceased employes, this THbunal at para ? te para 10 of the order in O.A. 1055/2015 frelled upon by the applicant) held as followes:-
ord Bor = ha PwueT ay acho at e3 re oxy Fe sonesseuees AS per the DOPT, OM dated OF. 10 19e8 ~ 2 é £ ~ a ae a £ my ee ee as per clause (8) Niete 7, "Definitien of She Geneadent Family Member" is extracted as under:
"Note i "Dependent family Member" means; fa} Spewse; or fh) Sen finclading adopted son) or:
fc} Daughter fociuding adopted daughter}: or {dq} Brother of sister in the case of unmarried Government Servwny oo...
7 7 2 s we adios sdatee Sk he s the 19928 DOP? OSS the slighivtv will be determined wd reference fo tie copivent's age af the See of submission of anication and not the cae af the sme of deoth of the deoresed employes. The O% not stete anywhere that status of dependency for award of ment points will nat be with reference to the date of death of employee nor does if state Shot ho owil be in eccardance with the date of submission points an Phe Guts % oeuaualll dependency and minarity stetus. The applicant could have applied anly on attaining majority + 2005 when he became 19 years without an ydevop sith reference te the date of death of his father, This wos vone on receiving the consent of both Als mother anc ader sister, os per laly down procedure, Further, agolcant was net all ot foul whetever be the prevailing reumstoages stated in the reply [regarding pendency of court cases} that Ais application af 2008 could be considered only in 2032. if respondenss' argument hes fo be given any credence, 2 would amount to ¢ saying Bot avey con happen avy oon the port of the upplicants(whereas the facts in the present cose are fo the contrary) and not by respendents further, if there is veloy due to circumstances beyond contra! the applic icant would get penalized while the benefit of delay would go fo respondents. The stend taken by the respondents to mot grant him merit points oan dependency and minority from wron g interpretation of the DOPYT OM of 1988 ard then reject Ais case i completely untenable.
2. On the issue of whet the date of consideration af application shoud be, for award af merit points, the applicant has righty reled upon the arder oF phils Trifys ceosed hes PSs ie OP EEP ERY da Bes ok aed So ORPERE cody Coe PQ oT OA No a8ors038§ doted OF OS. 2976 wherein this Tribunal has held os Follaws, consti PQ RELETEIRAR lone af phe espondert faw they e z PEE id o @ SG?
Bh FF .
G oy m accordance vik ie governing sohwmie, which woe nN fares ar the fine of death of the emploves. He gre Saund ths Be ayy 2. Fact 5 erlang &y the feagment oy ~ Eee: BOs phe Cory, awing Me slerwi ald down AY ste Supreme Cows is the sate cu ee, fe Ceprrat Adbntnste at five in airect ed fhe ¥ Be patitionsr arrae) father eat the 7, On the other hand, the respondents have refled on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MGB Gromin Bank \s. Chakrawarthi Singh {Supra}. it is clearly evident that the scheme formulated in 1998 continued iy 2010 and was the same, but the manner in which R would be operated was spelt out in the 2040 circular by elaborating the weight-age points to be accorded to the wach af the = bes laid down criteria for award of such points. Hence, the said judgment cannot er applicant's case, *
5. Again with reference to the decision of the Principal Bench of the Tibunal in case of the "Smt. Samvati Vs. UGH {supra} . it is wrong to interpret that there Was @ separate policy decision in 2010 in deviation fram the decision which existed when the schame was first notified in the year 1998. The definition of dependent family member as per clause 8 Note 1 of the Scheme of 1998 shows daughter to be a dependent member, Even though she was major being 15 years of age at the dime of applicant's father's death, her dependency continued Hl she got married iy 2014 after the circular of 2010 came into effect giving specific weightage to unmarned daughter Hence the decision of the Principal Bench does not anny to the oresent OA Eas §, it is the respondents' contention that the CRC could net meet 1 ht from aQ00 TH 2007 on account of cases of compassionate appaintment pend Re of U8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court. it may not be anybody's fault, but it is certainly net applicant's fault that his case could aot be considered "sey time after 2003 til 2012. The applicant was 16 years at the time of death of his father in 2003 and on attaining the majority in 2006, he immediately Hed his application, on such application being favoured by the widow of the deceased employee. Hence, there was no delay on the part of the applicant in filing the application in time with reference to the date of death of the deceased employee. Therefore, we haid that the delay in conducting CRC can have no impact on the applicant's case. Accepting the respondents cantention would mean that the date of assessment of dependency-based eligibility will shife according to the date convenient or feasible for respondents. There ig no concept of any such shifting dates in the entire scheme. Only the date with reference to the death of the deceased & employee is relevant for assessment of dependency based eligibility by applying parameters/weightage as per 2070 circular,
10. Hence the circular of 2010 and 2012 although rightly invoked by the respondents to consider the applicant's case, thers was misapplication of circular of 2010 arising from a misinterpretation of '1998 compassionate appointment scheme' that relative merit points would be awarded on the basis of status of iegal heir of the deceased ernployes in terms of marriage of daughter at the time of examination of cases for the CRC.
di. Keeping the above position of law and guidelines iy view, as an the date af death of the deceased employes, there were three dependerts Le. Wie, ane snmarried daughter and the applicant. The respandent should have been given $ ment paints against the category 'No. Gf Dependents' In the fight of para 4 (5) {e} % 33 of 38 Go of the circular of 20.2010. As regards unmarried daughter, the applicant's aster was 19 years of age at the time of death of the decaasedamployes. Since the minimum age of marriage as per law ig 18 years, she fell in the category of N unmarried daughter at the time of death of her father, Ner marrage, which had ta he conducted after applicant's father's death, is considered ss a "Nakity" under the scheme for the purpose of assessment of penury/indigency. The marriage was eventually serformed in 2011 after the death of the employee. The lability of marriage got disposed of only in 2021 by the surviving widow. Hence on the date of death of the employes, the applicant was eligible for award of 5 paints in the column 'Na. Of unmarrisd daughters as on 2010 Vand net nif points as contended by the reapondents. Hence, f S more points in the category 6! , no. of dependents' and 5 points in the category of 'no. of unmarried daughter ¢ are to be awarded, total 10 points shauld have been awarded to the applicant, taking his grand total fram 63 to 73 points.
432. The cut off marks for PA category in 7012 was 69. Since other candidates with merit points below 72 were given appoinimant up fo the S&S direct recruitment caiing, the applicant's case was eligible for being recommended by the Circle Relaxation Committee in 2012 fself, But he was erroneoualy rajected dus to misinterpretation of the circular.
13. The respondents rightly considered the applicant's case again in 2015 in the fight of the DoPAT OM dated 26.7,2012 but rafected his case again since the cut off point In the PA/SA cadre waa 66. The apgiicant, in fact, had YS merit eh ngints hance all thase below 73 paints up to the cut off point af 65 were less indigent than the applicant but were granted appointment while applic ANTS case oF 4s was again erroneously rejected due to misinterpretation of the provisions of the scheme, ae if. As per the letter dated 25.98.2015 of the Reapondent Now, which was & communicated to applicant an 1.92045 by Respondent No.2, it was stated that al! the nat recommended eases of CRC 2015 will be placed before the naxt cre and examined on merit, along with fresh cases received, subject to the availability of vacancies under DR quata. it is nat known whether CRC met thereafter,
18. It is evident that had the applicant been awarded 16 more points by the CRC 2012, a6 against 63 points, he becarne eligible for appointment in 2012 itself, The cut off points for PA cadre being only 69, the applicant had 4 points more than the above cut off paint. Hence he should have been considered against the vacancies whieh came up before the CRC 2013. The ehigibility to get appointed get converted into a right to get appointment in 2012 Hseelf against §% ceiling of DR vacancies even though compassianate appointment . per se, is Not a matter of night.
16, Hence, the question of not granting compassionate appaintment does nat arise. The question would be as te how to accornmadate the applicant for compassionate appointment, since he was wrongly rejected at the relevant point af time by misinterpretation and misapplication of policy/circular fguidelines of government, for which act the apsficant is nat at fault, ay Le, Accordingly, Respondent No.i is directed to re-convene CRE or have the CRO reconvened to consider accommodating the applicant against any vacant past whether PASSA cadre, PM cadre or MVS. Cadre, wherever vacaney is Nivailable and wherever he is found eligible, keeping in view the educational qualification of the applicant or other eligibility criteria in mind. Thereafter, Respondgnt Noi shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two manths from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
18. in view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.06.2012 and 1.9.2015 is Hable to be quashed and set aside and the O0.A, is lable to be allowed.
19. Accordingly the OLA. is allowed, No costs. oad